In this case, AT&T claims that it isn't really opposed to the merger, but it's filing opposition papers because it feels that Sprint and Clearwire aren't receiving the same level of scrutiny that AT&T received in its mergers, specifically with regards to it spectrum holdings. This seems like grasping at straws by AT&T just to throw some sort of extra paperwork roadblock in the path of the new Clearwire, which is an obvious competitor.

AT&T

Any facts?

Mr. Masnick, I am just some guy that occassionally reads your articles, and I know you are free to ignore anything I say. Be that as it may, it seems that your recent articles attempt to pass off your opinions as facts, with greater frequency. On what evidence do you base your conclusion that "[t]his seems like grapsing at straws," or that "AT&T just [wants] to throw some sort of extra paperwork roadblock in the path of Clearwire"? These assertions seem to be important points in your article, yet they seem to be unsupported. Maybe, just maybe, actually AT&T would like to prevent a competition from gaining an advantage that they (AT&T) did not have.

Re: Any facts?

AT&T has stated that they are not opposed to the merger, but that the deal requires greater scrutiny, i.e. more paperwork. If they had a serious reason to believe the deal shouldn't go through, they would have outright protested. It's a chance for AT&T to cause problems and delays for an eventual competitor.